hell of a lot of work to do, but it may work. >> anything you would like to say further? i am afraid that is all the time we have. let me first say a few words. you are all invited to a reception which will take place on the first floor, on the ground floor. all our guests will have media interviews for 10 minutes. after that, they will join the reception. one,ld like to ask you to remain seated until they are able to leave the room and go to the interview, and i hope you join me in thanking what has been truly a great panel. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> senate intelligence committee member ron wyden is our guest this sunday on "newsmakers." the senator has been an outspoken critic of the nsa. he talks about the response in congress on including an unsuccessful vote in the house this week to halt the nsa program. at 10:00rs" is sunday a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. also a look at the immigration status of a legal immigrants who were the u.s. as children. the house judiciary subcommittee heard testimony this week about the hardships about living as an

undocumented immigrant. leaders are working on a bill to address the status of the so- called dreamers. here onwatch the panel sunday at 10:35 eastern right here on c-span. >> interestingly, i think the korean war helped the south s unify themselves in a way that was not there before. communists came down, they were brutal. a lot of the south koreans turned against the communists in the north. that sort of solidified their sense of national cohesion and identity. kim il-sung waited, it is -- it isthat the south possible it would have disintegrated on its own. after north korean

troops crossed the 30th parallel, we look at a war that never really ended, sunday night " part ofn "afterwords, the tv this weekend on c-span 2. host: it was on this day in 1963 that an armistice was signed. back then it was the commander of u.s. forces that made the announcement. >> we have stopped the shooting. that means much to the fighting men and their families. it will allow some of the previous wounds of korea to heal. therefore i am thankful. it is only a step toward what yet might be done. the path now is to put the cease-fire agreement into full effect as quickly as we can and get down into working out a settlement of the korean it is a time for

prayer, that we may succeed in our difficult endeavor to turn this armistice to the advantage of mankind. host: greg brezinski, he serves as a and associated offense -- associated professor. we see the end result is far as this day on 1953. let us go back. describe what is going on in the united states and the world at the time in the lead up to the korean war. guest: when you talk about the lead up to the korean war, a lot of times what is emphasized in the united states is the american role. how does the united states get involved the echo for more americans the korean war begins on june 25, 1950 when north korea launches an invasion of south korea. but i think to understand korean war it is also important to pay attention to what is going on in korea between 1945 and 1950.

before 1945 korean had been high a -- before 1945 korean had been a japanese colony. there are groups of people that benefited from japanese colonialism and there were groups and individuals that had suffered deeply because of it. the right and the left in korea do not like each other. even if you take out the united states and take out the soviet union and china, it is still likely that there would have been some sort of civil conflict in korea. i think initially neither the united states nor the soviet union intended to divide korea. they both occupy parts of korea as was agreed to during the end of world war ii.

they had originally believed that they would negotiate and come up with a formula for a unified agreement. over the course of the.-- the period between 1945 and 1950 you get increasing cold war for cushion. -- cold war friction. this eventually leads to the creation of separate north and south korean states that are rivals from the time that they are created. throughout this period between 1948 in 19 fifth the,-- 1950, north korea desperately wants to invade south korea. they still fill it at -- they still view it as illegitimate. kim il-sung held a number of conversations with stalin.

by the spring of 1950 the stalin's to calculations have changed. he was more confident about the future of communism in asia because the chinese prime minister revolution has triumphed. he finally agrees to kim il- sung's plan to allow an invasion of south korea. >> what is happening here in the united states? guest: admittedly the truman and ministration views this as a threat. truman is not very eager to get involved in a major conflict in asia. nevertheless he thinks -- the truman administration believes that what the north koreans have done is essentially wiped out and dependence day.-- an independent state. that is a challenge to american democracy of this is brought up to the security council. the security council immediately passes a resolution, condemning

north korea aggression. within two days it is decided the united nations will send forces to the korean peninsula to push the korean troops out of south korea. host: do you have the sense congress went along with it well at the time you go guest: i think truman was -- well at the time echo -- well at the time? guest: i think truman's critics in the republican party, most of those critics criticized him for not being tough enough on communism. they were criticizing him for losing china. when it came to this kind of issue where there was a challenge to the united states by communism. there were still some isolationists in the republican party but generally the decision to rescue south korea was one

that generally had the approval of the public and congress. host: the topic for this final segment, the korean war. here's your chance to call in. if you want to send us suites -- send us tweets, it is @cspanwj. first and foremost, macarthur's role in this? guest: he made bold maneuvers. the amphibious assault that general macarthur's launches on the south korean city of inchon

in 1950. it helps turn the tide of the war. forces did not expected.-- did not expect it. this initial assault was extremely successful. eventually there were differences between macarthur and truman. i think macarthur took a very extreme view. if the united states had done what macarthur had wanted, who knows how large a military conflict we would have ended up getting involved in? truman wanted to limit the war. this became especially apparent in early 1951. chinese forces entered the war in 1950. they drive u.s. forces south of the 38th parallel by the beginning of 1951. then there is un-american-- an

american counteroffensive. it is during this time where macarthur wants to take much more aggressive actions at dance to china and against north korea. he is talking about using nuclear weapons to it hacked-- to attack china if necessary. he is talking about that it is absolutely essential that the united states and south korean forces recapture north korea and and destroy the korean state. president truman did not agree with that area he decided the united states would be best off if the war was limited. so messed -- macarthur is constantly criticizing truman because of the difference of opinion between test -- between the two men. this leads to macarthur being accused of insubordination and being dismissed. i think ultimately it was a good decision by the truman administration. you had a general who was advocating policies that were just too extreme and were in

many ways dangerous. it may well have led to world war iii. it is in this latter stage of the conflict that macarthur's judgment were not very good. guest: we have if you're asking about the u.s. intention. was it used as an excuse to enter the war? host: i do not think the nets it ever intended to invade china.-- the united states ever intended to invade china. i think they did do something that made his chinese -- that made the chinese very concerned. immediately after the north korean invasion of south korea harry truman sent the u.s. seventh fleet into the taiwan strait. china was still hoping that it would be able to launch its own amphibious assault on taiwan and reunify them with the mainland. the dispatch of the seventh fleet prevented this.

this is one thing that really can chinese suspicions of the kindled chinese suspicions of the united states. the united states was warned repeatedly not to cross the 38th parallel. whether the united states would invade or not, china was still view -- china still viewed north korea as an important buffer. another chinese motive is that during the chinese civil war there had been some north korean lessons that shot -- that fought alongside chinese communist forces. there was still a sense of fraternal solidarity with the north korean workers party. all of these things help to contribute to china's eventual decision to enter the war in the end of 1950. guest: the korean war is the

topic. you mentioned the landing in inchon. for we talk about that, as we started fighting there, how did we do overall? guest: in the early part of the war, especially between june 25, 1950 and august of 1950, the united states was not doing very well. part of the reason for this was the south korean forces were very -- were not very prepared for the north korean onslaught. american forces were rushed to the korean peninsula through japan, there were a significant amount of forces in japan as part of the occupation at the time. they were not completely ready to deal with the situation at

hand. they did not even have the sufficient weapons to deal with the weapons north korea had at the time. during this initial phase american and south korean forces are pushed back to what is called the pusan perimeter. it is a very small area in southeastern korea. most of korea is occupied by north korean forces of the time. north korean forces committed numerous atrocities against south korean civilians. with the inchon landing the tides turned. in 1950 you have more american troops, mori american equipment being sent into the pusan perimeter. eventually they are able to

strengthen this perimeter and defend it and hold out until we enforcement arrived. host: here is david from rochester, new york. hello. caller: yes i am a student of history and i would like to read the best books on every segment of history, and if you could recommend what you think is the best book on the korean war. guest: there are a few, covering different aspects. if you want to read about the international history of the war, one of the books i like is "the korean war international history." if you want to know about the korean dimension of the war, a well-known scholar at the university of chicago, bruce cummings, has written books on the origin of the korean war. there are a lot of books that cover different aspects of the

topic. a professor at cornell university has written a book called "china's road to the korean war." that is also one i would highly recommend. host: our guest is also an author. guest: that's right. the book is not explicitly about the korean war but it does deal with part of the war and the long-term impact on american relations with south korea. if you are interested in that, i would definitely make it a plus for myself. host: we have dom on the independent line. caller: i have -- i hope this program reminds people we have had two wars with china in the past 50 years. chinese almost won the korean war when macarthur had its landing cut off supplies so that

they had to retreat and so forth. we have now made them a powerful competitor. they are not our friends. the reason they are scaling information from us is just to reinforce that information. the fools in washington who have sold us out to the chinese and sold our factory workers out to the chinese, they have them to thank for. manufacturing is 20% of our economy. i think our relationship with china is much more competent than it was during the korean war.

during the korean war they were our adversary, absolutely. today when people talk about the u.s. relations with china they talk about a mix of cooperation and come petition. -- and competition. there are areas where china is obviously an american editor.-- an american competitor. there are areas where it is a necessary. -- where it is an adversary. a political adversary, a economic adversary. i think an important aspect of the korean war is that when you talk about why is there so much mutual suspicion? why is there so much mutual distrust between the united states and china? i think what happens between 1949 and 1953 has a lot to do with it. it contributes to an ongoing chinese understanding that the united states wants to encircle

china in different ways. you still hear china talking about this now. host: we have a few or ask about -- if you want to ask about the korean people had to the war. guest: the support for vietnam was extremely low by the end of every -- by the end of the war. the korean war was not popular by 1952. one of the things eisenhower promised is he would go to korea and bring in and -- and bring an end to the war. the fundamental questions that the american people were asking about, the nature of foreign- policy, were much more fundamental during the vietnam war than they were during the korean war. host: joe was on our republican line. caller: i am interested if

you're guest has any relations brazinsky. last name in regards to his being on truman's side and demanding macarthur's resignation, would you agree that north korea has achieved a nuclear explosion and getting an object into orbit -- would it not be arguable that macarthur had a longer view of history than truman, in light of the fact that north korea has been -- has an upper -- has an object in orbit. guest: your first question is easy. the answer is, no. i did my phd at cornell. i was not asked that once in my five or six years here. since i have come to washington i get that at least every other week.

no known relation. in terms of your question, it is a very challenging one in a lot of ways. if we have eliminated or wiped out north korea in 1951 then it would not exist today and we would not have all of the problems that we are involved with having this rogue regime that develops nuclear weapons and threatens our allies in the pacific region. i think you have to ask what the cost would have been if you had engaged in a protracted war over the korean peninsula between 19 and 1953.3.-- 1950 i think it would have been a much bloodier conflict than it already was. i think it would have ended up in a lot more chinese volunteers. in the end we would have needed to send a lot more american

forces to the korean theater. that would lead -- that would have led to a lot more american casualties. i think the hostility would be even more enduring. you are right in that there is no easy answer to the north korean situation. looking back on history, if we had tried to remain in the war and fight until korea was unified as an anti-communist bulwark, i think the cost would have been extremely great back then. the cost may have been greater than the american public and american resources could have borne. it is a good question and a challenging question. i still think truman did the right thing. host: a viewer asks -- guest: was this the result of the united states getting involved in the civil war?

that is absolutely. there were these divisions within korean society, divisions between groups that have benefited or collaborated with japanese imperialism or groups that have suffered under colonialism. even before 1950, the large- scale north korean invasion of the americas biggest intervention -- there are constant border skirmishes between north and cap -- north and south korea. south korea thinks north korea is illegitimate and fisa bursa. -- and vice versa. it was a war that has international dimensions. south korea probably would not have looked the way that it did. similarly i do not think that

north korea would have looked the way it did by 1950 if the soviet union had not played such a significant role in bringing kim il-sung to power and giving north korea different kinds of aid and support. there is a combination of civil war and a combination of civil war and international conflict elements in the korean case. host: parallel to said -- to syria? guest: i think the dimensions were very different. i the time you get to 1950 and the united states intervenes you are dealing with two separate states. i think the dimensions of it are quite different to that regard. host: here is john from massachusetts. the key for holding on.-- thank

you for holding on. go ahead. guest: i was curious if you had seen oliver stone's "a history of the united states." korea was a japanese colonial basin. at the end of the second world war russell was probably going-- probably going to invade japan if china russia was the real power in the world. issues.es on those the koreans and chinese have a history of all kinds of war

massacres it is -- all kind of massacres. it is a competition situation. wasn't the war a cold war extension? guest: that is a cold war extension. it also reflected, as i have been mentioning, these divisions in korean society. in a way the at mid -- the truman administration reacted to it, it reflects what is going on in the world and the origins of the cold war. in particular, one of the things the truman administration said and one of the ideas that was used as justification for sending american troops to korea. this represented an instance of

communist aggression. allowed as nazi aggression was allowed in munich. from the perspective of the truman administration and from china their motives were very much intertwined with the cold war. host: john from ohio. are you there? caller: hello. my question is when i got drafted i got -- i was at fort lewis, washington. everybody was going to korea but they sent me to germany new -- to germany. i was curious, the thousands of

troops -- i was curious how many thousands of troops we had in germany. we ought to deter communism. that was the whole thing of the korean war, to stop communism. we have all of these communist satellite countries of the time. guest: thank you for serving, first of all. i would say a couple of things. the truman administration's priority was actually europe. one of the reasons it was so reluctant to fight a major war in korea. the truman administration believed europe was important. the defense of germany against communism needed to be america's first priority.

i think that explains why there i think that explains why there were still people getting called up to be a part of nato forces in europe at a time when we were fighting communists on the ground and in korea. i am not sure of the exact number of troops that i had in different parts of europe at the time. host: why is it referred to as "the forgotten war?" guest: the answer is an interesting one. how did it become a "forgotten war? it is this war that is sandwiched between world war ii and the vietnam war, which has a much more infamous history in and aunited states. it had such an enduring clinical

impact and was so traumatizing. you have this great victory in world war ii and is traumatic defeat in vietnam. youi think historians tend to focus on those two wars and pay less attention to korea. another reason korea has become a forgotten war is because it is really hard to talk about what they've the united states won the war or lost the war. it is not something that is easy to glorify in american history and it is not something that is easy to depict as an out right tragedy. there is no clear historical narrative that teachers can use to describe the war. that is something that i think contributes to the fact that it is not studied as much. and by the media and by popular writers as some of the other wars that the united states has been involved in. host: what is the significance of the 38th parallel? guest:

there was no real reason to divide at the 38th parallel. it was something random. in 1945, initially the united states was thinking that we will occupy japan and baby the soviet union will come in and occupy's and occupy korea. the truman administration's thinking at the end of world war ii again to change a little bit. they started thinking they will occupy japan, that will be an important linchpin in our policy in the pacific. korea has always been a dagger pointing into the heart of japan. people in the truman administration started to think it might be a good idea for the united states to occupy part of korea. but they are basically ending up doing is sending to american officials. dean rusk would eventually become secretary of state under kennedy. they looked at some old maps of

the korean peninsula and realized that soul -- seoul is south of the 38th parallel, so let us draw the line there. that is how they became to be divided. there is not much logic of why they would divided there. because that is the decision that was made, it has become very important so starkly. host: republican line. caller: i had a book by david duncan, he was with the first marine division and he landed -- until they evacuated the reservoir. were you familiar with that book? there were live pictures of the battles all the way up.

if you could tell me where i could find that took so i can have it replaced again. guest: i am not familiar with that book. in terms of how to acquire it, i do not know. in terms of where you might see it, i think there is probably some research libraries. the library of congress probably has these kinds of books. host: the viewer mentioned it was a turning point in the war, inchon. here is the positioning of the marines and the importance of this as far as the macarthur strategy -- guest: it was an important turning point because the north koreans were not expecting the united states american forces to come in.

it was a difficult landing. i think at a time when macarthur makes this landing american forces -- north koreans have occupied most of south korea. south korean and american forces are mostly stationed within that narrow perimeter and the southeastern part of korea. he makes this landing, it is dramatic. they cut off north korean supply lines. within a few weeks of the inchon landing the north korean occupation of south korea has ended. forces has withdrawn north of the 38th parallel. the question really became whether or not american and south korean forces should advance north of the 38th parallel. host: isn't north and south korea technically in a state of

war? guest: absolutely. there has never been a peace treaty. there has been a cease-fire but never a formal peace treaty ending the korean war. now and then you'll hear korea talk about this as something that it wants in exchange for giving up its nuclear program. i actually think it is something the united states should consider. right now america's influence in north korea and our ability to engage is very minimal. one of the reasons for that is because we have no legitimate channels to contact them. i am not saying that if we sign this peace treaty that north korea is going to change or we are going to be able to transform it overnight, but it is something that might estimate a little bit of a dent in their behavior. it might be something that would enable the united states did get a little bit more information about north korea, to know more about it and to be able to work with it just a little but more constructively. host: if you are interested in

learning more about the korean war as for special events are concerned, a special event is scheduled to take place -- you see live pictures of it now. we will show you live the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the armistice. president obama inspect -- is set to speak as well as secretary chuck hagel. that'll take place at 10:00 right after this show on our sister channel. new york, independent line. caller: good morning. the korean war should be a template of how not to fight a war. by that i mean the president -- one man committed troops. they proceeded to defy -- to fight the war from defensive posture. we did not pursue the anomie until he captured or killed him.

what did we get? an armistice where we are still fighting this war. i've -- i feel many of those facts could be applied to the vietnam war. vietnam did not even have an air force or nav. 50,000 or more were killed. the rest turned and ran. guest: there were obviously strategic blunders committed during the korean war. is it a war that we absolutely should not have fought? that is a much more difficult question. if the united states had not gotten involved in the korean war, probably today the entire korean peninsula will look like north korea and south korea would not exist.

today south korea has one of the most vibrant democracies in all of asia. in the united states we drive around in our hyundai's, we have our samsung phones, all of these things would not have existed if the united states had not gotten involved in the korean war. i think that is important to remember. there were tragic elements of it. there were strategic blunders. i think the sacrifices of the americans who fought in the war made were not for nothing. they helped to create a prosperous democracy, whose citizens are better off than people throughout most of asia. host: talk about the aftermath, particularly what happened because of president truman and general macarthur. guest: what happens to general macarthur, after his dismissal he returns to the united states.

there are congressional hearings in which he sharply criticizes the truman administration and the truman strategy during the korean war. he gives the famous line, "old soldiers never die, they just fade away." in fact macarthur fades away. during the hearings he actually shows himself to be really a hard liner and his views seem so extreme that even the republicans in congress who are out to get truman started to lose their sympathy for him. in the end there was some talk that he would pursue the presidential nomination in 1952 but he does not even become a legitimate contender. truman's popularity had been suffering by 1952 for a variety of reasons. some of them have to do with domestic issues. some of them have to do with foreign-policy issues. for truman the loss of china was

something the republicans used to bash his foreign-policy and criticize him from a poor foreign-policy perspective -- from a foreign-policy perspective. by 1952 truman leaves office extremely unpopular but his reputation has been resurrected by some historians. he is one of the most controversial and debated presidents in american history when it comes to foreign-policy, with some people blaming the cold war on him and some people saying he acted wisely and judiciously in his policy. i think the ultimate legacy in terms of truman have not been completely settled by historians. host: this is offered on our democrat line. caller: i served in korea, not during the korean war.

i saw a monument dedicated to allied troops. could your guests talk about what role did the u.n. play in the war in korea and can he name some of the other allies that box? -- that fought? guest: the u.s. send more forces than any other country. andthis was a un effort that encompassed troops -- i thought i forgot the exact number of countries, but it was a significant number of countries beyond united states. canadian, australian, turkish troops . there were some battles that these u.n. troops played a critical role in warding off

north korea and chinese forces or in creating opportunities for allied forces to escape. i think that is a very good point that this conflict was -- it was u.n. forces at the u.n. command. even if american forces were the largest in number, nevertheless troops from other countries that were allied with united states also played a very significant role, also made sacrifices, also died to protect south korea during the war. host: we have been learning about the korean war. thank you for your time this what is her as close as they could -- what is it would they would come up

as close as they could. it was our first lines. it did not matter how many casualties they took. those who went down were followed by a new wave. they had no weapons. helped -- kept by force of numbers trying to push us out of our positions. >> commemorating the 60th anniversary of the korean war armistice. accountrans eyewitness followed by 5:00 as president obama and chuck hagel a tribute to the veterans memorial to the americans who search. american history tv every weekend on c-span three.

>> of the next washington journal we would hear from the christian science monitor. a preview of the week of had before the recess. detroit fouling for bankruptcy. how the decision will impact the city. tim rubin, a senior fellow is our guest. the brookings institution joins us to talk about obama administration plan to step up support for syria and military assistance. washington journal errors -- airs live every morning. >> the father of trayvon martin speaks to members of congress about his sons the death and the challenges facing young black men. former president jimmy carter talks about th